With only 50.65% of the vote, the proposal was approved by voters in only six of the state’s 36 counties.
However, support from the densely populated cities was enough to squeeze it through, and Measure 114 became law.
The much-anticipated new ruling was handed down by Presiding Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio of the 24th Judicial District. He determined that the requirement to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm ran afoul of constitutional protections and granted a permanent injunction.
The controversial measure also banned the sale of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. It has never taken effect due to multiple legal challenges at both the federal and state levels.
His ruling countered a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut. Her conclusion that Measure 114 passed constitutional muster is currently under appeal before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Gun rights supporters labeled the voter-approved law the country’s “most extreme.”
One expert told the court that semiautomatic firearms are part of the nation’s history and tradition of weapons — a requirement of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision. Ashley Hlebinsky is a former firearm museum curator, and she testified that several early models around the time Oregon became a state could fire multiple rounds and deploy magazine-style devices.
Attorney Tony Aiello Jr. represented two Harney County gun owners in the case. He told Fox News that “the idea that Oregon’s pioneers intended to freeze the firearm technology accessible by Oregonians to antiques is ridiculous on its face. If there is any evidence of such an intention, Defendants certainly did not present any of it at trial.”
Anti-gun forces quickly fell back on familiar rhetoric in their outrage over Raschio’s ruling. State Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (D) sent a scathing letter to Oregon Public Radio regurgitating talking points commonly employed by those who seek to eradicate the Second Amendment.
“The Harney County judge’s ruling is wrong. Worse, it needlessly puts Oregonians’ lives at risk. The state will file an appeal and we believe we will prevail.”
Raschio strongly disagreed, noting in his decision that the state did not amply back up its claims. “The court finds no evidence in the record that public safety is promoted by the permit-to-purchase policy. The defendant showed there is a harm from gun violence in terms of injuries and deaths, but as stated above provided no evidence the program would help reduce these harms.”
Among those resisting the anti-gun law are Oregon police. Many voiced concerns that they would be forced to get a permit to carry their weapons while off-duty.
Several gun rights organizations filed suits against Measure 114, including the Oregon Firearms Federation. The group’s Ken Starrett told Ammoland that “the whole landscape could change a lot, maybe within the next couple of weeks. I don’t like to predict what’s going to happen. What’s next for me is to talk to all the attorneys on these multiple cases.”
Gun rights advocates are not optimistic that the state Court of Appeals will concur with Raschio’s ruling. The judges are not generally prone to side with gun owners, and that’s the worry with the Oregon Supreme Court as well.
There are far too many current instances of anti-gun forces attempting to strip Second Amendment rights away from law-abiding citizens. In Oregon and elsewhere, it is critical that freedom-loving organizations continue the good fight to ensure the right to keep and bear arms stays strong.
